Logical Reasoning

PT151 · S3 · Q10 Physician: Clinical psychologists who are not

A free, expert breakdown of this official LSAT Logical Reasoning question.

  • Save & drill this skill — build targeted practice sets from questions like this one

  • Video walkthroughs — watch every question solved step by step

  • 81 official LSATs — as questions, timed sections & full-length tests

Start practicing free

Physician: Clinical psychologists who are not also doctors with medical degrees should not be allowed to prescribe psychiatric medications.

Conclusion (should = opinion)

Clinical psychologists who don't have medical degrees should no be allowed to prescribe psychiatric medications.

Evidence

Clinical psychology includes at most a few hundred hours of education in neuroscience, physiology, and pharmacology. Meanwhile, to get a medical degree you must receive years of training in those fields before you're allowed to prescribe psychiatric medications.

Evaluate

We're trying to support a conclusion that's saying, , so we know the answer should be a principle that is structured like, if such-and-such → should not be allowed is the case to prescribe psychiatric meds

The evidence is all about the fact that clinical psychologists w/o medical degrees haven't had as much medical training / education as have people with medical degrees.

Goal

So we'll look for something like,

if you've only trained should not be for at most a few hundred → allowed to hours in neuro/phys/pharm prescribe

10.

Which one of the following principles, if valid, would most help to justify the reasoning in the physician's argument?

  1. Clinical psychologists who are also

    Bad Conclusion Match

    This answer is just an illegal negation of the conclusion itself. Like if we were trying to prove that "tall children love their moms", this answer would be saying "short children don't love their moms". We need a principle that would allow us to derive that someone should not be allowed to prescribe, and this is a principle that allows you derive that someone should be allowed.

    5% picked this

  2. Doctors without training in clinical

    Bad Trigger Match

    This is definitely a rule that would let us derive language like "should not be allowed to prescribe". Can we apply it to our subject, to "Clinical psychologists who are not also doctors with medical degrees"? Do they qualify as "doctors without training in clinical psychology"? Of course not. That sounds like the opposite group. Our conclusion is about CP's that aren't doctors. This answer is about doctors that aren't CP's. So this answer is functionally useless to us.

    1% picked this

  3. Correct

    No one without years of

    Why this is right

    This is a rule that would allow one to derive "X should not be allowed to prescribe". Is its trigger applicable to our subject, the clinical psychologists who are not also doctors with medical degrees? If you don't have years then should not of training in neuro, phys, → be allowed to and pharmacology prescribe psy meds Yes, we can apply this rule (not with 100% certainty, but high confidence). We were told that training in clinical psychology only involves at most a few hundred hours of such training. According to this rule, if you don't get years of such training, then you shouldn't be able to prescribe. So applying this rule to what we know about clinical psychologists, we can say something very similar to the conclusion.

    Skill tested: Principle-Strengthen · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.

    78% picked this

  4. The training in neuroscience, physiology,

    Bad Conclusion Match

    We need a rule whose outcome sounds like "should not be allowed to prescribe psychiatric medications". This answer would allow us to conclude that someone "should be allowed to prescribe".

    14% picked this

  5. Clinical psychologists should receive years

    Bad Conclusion Match

    We need a rule whose outcome sounds like "should not be allowed to prescribe psychiatric medications". This answer doesn't have any language like that at all.

    2% picked this

Continue the review in LSAT Lab

Save this question, watch the video walkthrough, and drill similar questions in your LSAT Lab account.

Save and practice this skill
LSAT Lab

Turn this review into a targeted study plan.

Save this question, drill more like it, watch the video walkthrough, and track your progress in your LSAT Lab account.

Start practicing free